Global Warming's Terrifying New Math

the legislative roadmap to destruction

https://theintercept.com/2016/12/16/if-you-want-to-see-how-donald-trump-will-destroy-the-environment-read-this-legislative-roadmap/

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C0IfPlxWIAAvte4.jpg:small

put your green hopes in... Mad Dog.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/james-mattis-climate-change-trump-defense-232833

just confirms what I've suspected all these years, frame climate change as a defense issue and suddenly our government will start caring

The govt has cared about climate change as a defense issue for a long time - the DoD was producing huge reports on what it means for security since the GWB administration.

The republican side of the legislative branch of our govt doesn't care about that, though.

A questionnaire from President-elect Donald Trump’s transition team asked State Department employees to report how much money the agency had paid to international environmental organizations, the Washington Post reported Monday.

According to anonymous sources within the State Department, employees in the Bureau of Oceans and International Environmental and Scientific Affairs were given a questionnaire last week which asked in part: “How much does the Department of State contribute annually to international environmental organizations in which the department participates?”

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/trump-transition-asks-state-department-international-environmental-spending

Despite despair being an instantly recognizable, and not obviously mad, response to the climate crisis, very little has been written on this. Notable exceptions are: Nolt 2010; Williston 2012; Fiala 2010.

following up on sanpaku's references i found this one to be fruitful; durrr that looking for the opposite of despair would be a good idea. this traces back to papers by michael p. nelson (2010) and allen thompson (2010), also on radical hope, which borrows from jonathan lear's work on the cultural devastation of the crow nation.

Climate Change and Radical Hope
Author(s): Byron Williston
Source:
Ethics and the Environment,
Vol. 17, No. 2, Special Issue on Climate Change (Fall
2012), pp. 165-186
Published by: Indiana University Press
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/ethicsenviro.17.2.165

i thought this was a really good piece. sorry for long excerpt but the whole thing is worth reading.

Trump, Putin and the Pipelines to Nowhere
You can’t understand what Trump’s doing to America without understanding the “Carbon Bubble”

...Here’s the blunt reality: the pressure to cut emissions and respond to a changing climate are going to alter what we do and don’t see as valuable. Climate action will trigger an enormous shift in the way we value things.
If we can’t burn oil, it’s not worth very much. If we can’t defend coastal real estate from rising seas (or even insure it, for that matter), it’s not worth very much. If the industrial process a company owns exposes them to future climate litigation, it’s not worth very much. The value of those assets is going to plummet, inevitably… and likely, soon.

...For high-carbon industries to continue to be attractive investments, then, they must spin a tale of future growth. They must make potential investors believe that even if there is a Carbon Bubble, it is decades away from popping — that their high profits today will continue for the foreseeable future, so their stock is worth buying.
How would you maintain this confidence?

You’d dispute climate science — making scientists’ predictions seem less certain in the public mind— and work to gut the capacity of scientists to continue their work (by, for instance, defunding NASA’s Earth Sciences program).

You’d attack global climate agreements, making them look unstable and weak, and thus unlikely to impact your businesses.

You’d attack low-carbon competitors politically, attempting to portray the evidence that they can replace high-carbon industries as fraudulent (or at least overly idealistic).

You’d use every leverage point to slow low-carbon industrial progress — for example, by continuing massive subsidies to oil and gas companies, while attacking programs to develop new energy sources.

You’d support putting a price on carbon, since this makes you look moderate and engaged, but you’d make sure that the definition of a “reasonable” price on carbon was so low and took so long to implement that it was no real threat to your business, and at worst would replace the dirtiest fossil fuels with others (switching for example from coal to gas).

You would ally with extremists and other sources of anti-democratic power, in order to be able to fight democratic efforts to cut emissions through the application of threats, instability and violence.

Most of all, you’d invest as heavily as possible in new infrastructure and supply. For oil and gas companies, this means new exploration and new pipelines. Why would you do this, if you know you may have to abandon these assets before they’ve paid off? Two reasons: First, it sends a signal of confidence to markets that you expect to continue to grow in the future. Second, it’s politically harder to force companies to abandon expensive investments than it is to prevent those systems from being built in the first place — the mere existence of a pipeline becomes an argument for continuing to use it. This, too, bolsters investor confidence. (Note that whether these assets are eventually abandoned or not is of little concern to current investors looking to delay devaluations).

Here’s the kicker: If you were going to put in place a presidential administration that was dedicated to taking these actions, it would look exactly like what we have now: a cabinet and chief advisors in which nearly every member is a climate denialist with ties to the Carbon Lobby.

Trump wants ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson to be his Secretary of State. You might remember that Exxon has been a main driver of climate denialism, as well as being one the largest polluters in history. Tillerson also has close ties with Vladimir Putin.
Not long ago, Tillerson was quoted as saying “The world is going to have to continue using fossil fuels, whether they like it or not.” Think that one over. This is the man who would be America’s face to the world.

Trump has also put forward a host of other appointees who are overt climate denialists and generally also have financial ties to industries threatened by the Carbon Bubble. These include Rick Perry, Trump’s choice for Secretary of Energy and a close ally of Big Oil; Scott Pruitt (EPA Administrator — a virulent climate denialist); Nikki Haley (U.N. Ambassador, also known for suppressing climate science as Governor); Steve Bannon (Chief Strategist, and just generally gross); Ryan Zinke (Secretary of Interior — who strongly supports more oil and gas exploration on public lands): Jeff Sessions (Attorney General and climate regulation opponent); Elaine Chao (Secretary of Transportation, who will be tasked with getting a huge fossil fuel infrastructure plan through Congress, working with her husband, Mitch McConnell); James Mattis (Secretary of Defense, who is not a denialist but does have oil industry ties); Michael Flynn (National Security Advisor — and former oil industry lobbyist); Larry Kudlow (Council of Economic Advisors — a climate denialist and frequent defender of the Koch brothers); Wilbur Ross (Commerce Secretary — holds “hundreds of millions of dollars” in oil and gas investments); even Betsy DeVos (Education Secretary) is sister to Blackwater founder Erik Prince, who is investing heavily in African oil and gas fields, “places where he thinks his expertise in providing logistics and security can give him a competitive edge.”

This is a cabinet custom-built to protect carbon industry investors… especially, perhaps, one.

chris hayes' metaphor in the nation a few years ago that a serious response to climate change would entail a destruction of capital comparable to the one represented by the abolition of slavery continues to be a helpful way for me to think about this stuff and who will be willing to do what re: it, inexact as the analogy may obviously be in key ways

has anyone read this? it's a bit long but really flush with detail, if repetitive:

http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/21060-green-capitalism-the-god-that-failed

i think this is what pushed me to give up on capitalism entirely

A serious response is not going to happen without global trade accord with teeth: products that don't price-in greenhouse externalities will be tariffed to approximate these. Which I don't think will happen till we've baked in 3° C. 3° C probably entails 6-8° C from positive feedbacks. Humanity will survive (in pockets), but technological civilization is more doubtful. And good luck advancing past the Renaissance without a fossil fuel bootstrap. This isn't an inconvenient truth, this isn't widespread suffering, this is the end of hopes for humanity to expand and understand the universe. Its our Great Filter, as I suspect its been on other worlds.

Also, I need to get into analog synths and name my project "Great Filter", which to my surprise hasn't been taken yet.

a destruction of capital comparable to the one represented by the abolition of slavery

was the idea supposed to be in part (a) that this was a sea change in who it was that effectively POSSESSED capital, and (b) it was also covered over/obscured by concurrent industrialization?

if the article i linked to is anything to go by, the ecologically responsible price for ghg should necessarily contract the size of the economy thus making any progress towards ghg reduction fruitless in a political system which privileges economic growth (which is not limited to capitalism, though it is inherent in capitalism)

xp

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/all-references-to-climate-change-have-been-deleted-from-the-white-house-website

see you in hell, y'all!!!

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/02/07/science/earth/antarctic-crack.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=photo-spot-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

oh cool, a hellmouth

Oklahoma hits 100° in the dead of winter

This is awesome; also, terrifying.

http://en.newsner.com/man-points-camera-at-ice-then-captures-the-unimaginable-on-film/about/nature

@EricHolthaus
Temperatures up to 40 degF (22 degC) above normal today across the East.
The warmest February day for 100+ years (since records begin).

https://twitter.com/EricHolthaus/status/835197141366657024

Currently 74 in Cleveland. Hottest Feb. 24 on record for both Cleveland and Akron.

@NWSChicago
Chicago's about to do something its never done in 146 years of record keeping: go the entire months of Jan & Feb with no snow on the ground.

february tornado warning in iowa

For the first time ever, no measurable snow in Chicago this January and February.

Officially. 50s today, but might snow tomorrow!

Snow in March?? We could use some of that global warming I'm always hearing about, am I right??

An Argentine research base located on the northern tip of Antarctica hit a balmy 63.5° Fahrenheit today, hotter than New York City's 61° Fahrenheit (as of 1:26 p.m.)

http://in.reuters.com/article/antarctica-temperatures-idINKBN1684IC

isolated incident!

fuuuck

that and more:

Scientists know thawing permafrost unlocks carbon. But according to Tank, most of the carbon in the Canadian melting is being released quickly as coarse particles that aren't converted to CO2 immediately. But separate research by Swedish scientists suggests that the soil particles are quickly converted to heat-trapping CO2 when they are swept into the sea. A series of studies on the National Institute of Health's Arctic Health website documents how the widespread thaw of permafrost is already having direct impacts on people. Warmer water and increased sediment loads are harming lake trout, an important source of food for native communities. Changes to the land surface are also disrupting caribou breeding and migration, and in some places, the disappearing permafrost has destroyed traditional food storage cellars, researchers have found. At lower latitudes, permafrost is the glue that holds the world's highest mountains together by keeping rocks and soil frozen in place. Scientists are documenting how those bonds are dissolving, said Stefan Reisenhofer, a climate scientist with the Austrian Bureau of Meteorology and Geodynamics.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/27022017/global-warming-permafrost-study-melt-canada-siberia

http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a53555/antarctica-63-degrees-permafrost-melt/

bill mckibben on bill maher is less depressing than he might be

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V69l7zbFeAk

the oceans are warming 13% faster than previously thought. sweet!

http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/3/3/e1601545

The world has lost roughly half its coral reefs in the last 30 years. Scientists are now scrambling to ensure that at least a fraction of these unique ecosystems survives beyond the next three decades. The health of the planet depends on it: Coral reefs support a quarter of all marine species, as well as half a billion people around the world.

"This isn't something that's going to happen 100 years from now. We're losing them right now," said marine biologist Julia Baum of Canada's University of Victoria. "We're losing them really quickly, much more quickly than I think any of us ever could have imagined."

Even if the world could halt global warming now, scientists still expect that more than 90 percent of corals will die by 2050. Without drastic intervention, we risk losing them all.

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory/scientists-race-prevent-wipeout-worlds-coral-reefs-46084018

Seventeen congressional Republicans signed a resolution on Wednesday vowing to seek "economically viable" ways to stave off global warming, challenging the stated views of President Donald Trump, who has called climate change a hoax.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-congress-idUSKBN16M235

"economically viable" ways to stave off global warming

kill the poor, recycle them into soylent green

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C7cf02MXkAIExPd.jpg

hey, we found the smart part of Florida

what is up with South Dakota there

Rosebud and Pine Ridge Indian Reservations.

To be fair, for most people alive today in North America and Europe, the main adverse effect of climate change they'll notice is rising food prices. Indirect effects will be depressing international news, migrant crises, and the rise of fascist nativism. Lethal heatwaves and abandonment of coasts will happen after I'm dead.

It's so difficult to explain that a massive effort to decarbonize the economy would take decades, and even when accomplished the world would continue to warm for decades due to thermal sinks and feedbacks, and that every year we delay will reduce the human carrying capacity and increase the total ice-cap melt over millenia. Decisions we make will effect the next hundred generations, and not enough of us realize this.

the next hundred generations

you're very optimistic

barring total thermonuclear annihilation, there'll be a hundred generations of humans in the future. chances are there'll be less of them, living lives of grinding deprivation compared to us, but i feel like the human race won't get off so lightly as to go entirely extinct within the next 2000 years or less.

a bright side to all of this is that if global human life expectancy goes down, we might be able to eke out a few more generations over the same span of time

such a pessimist, bg

nah, it's wishful thinking - i've always wanted to live in waterworld

a bright side to all of this is that if global human life expectancy goes down, we might be able to eke out a few more generations over the same span of time

generations don't work this way

yeah, you're right. well another bright side is that this will all make a hell of a story some day

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51GJCBgMhhL._SX322_BO1,204,203,200_.jpg

haha this guy, great work: http://www.hcn.org/articles/why-california-is-recruiting-dispirited-epa-and-energy-department-employees

you're very optimistic

Mostly splitting the difference:
~70 years: exhaustion of fossil fuels besides coal
150 years: atmospheric effects (temperature/precipitation changes) maximized, assuming limited runaway feedback
1k years: half of the Arctic and Antarctic ice caps are gone
2k years: CO2 equilibrates with the oceans, leaving about 35% of anthropogenic emissions to perturb climate
3k years: ocean depths still warming
5k years: ice caps nearly all gone, sea level rise at maximum
10k years: remaining CO2 emissions drawn down by limestone weathering, but next ice age averted
120k years: the next glaciation, back on the Milankovitch cycle

Ie, human carrying capacity falls over the next two centuries, coastal settlements are abandoned over the next 50 centuries, and after that, whomever remains has to preserve or recover civilization without the benefit of easily mined fuels/metals/fertilizers. Houseboats, scuba salvaging, and waste composting will be big industries.

gosh, if only I could live to see it

whomever remains has to preserve or recover civilization without the benefit of easily mined fuels/metals/fertilizers.

i re-read a canticle for leibowitz recently and the central idea, that civilisation could rebuild itself completely a couple of times over after nuclear devastation, seemed overly optimistic for that very reason.

if (or, probably more realistically, when) climate change really starts to bite and quality of life for the vast majority of humans takes a nosedive, we as a species are likely doomed to never again reach the levels of technology and comfort we have now. so uh enjoy it while it lasts i guess?

it's neat that we did make it to the moon before we tanked completely. that's something I guess.